charity wrote:Most rape is not about sex. So repressed sexuality doesn't even get into the picture. Rape is about power. Men in societies where they have the power don't generally rape. Most fordible rapists have sexual realtionships with wives or girl friends.
If I'm not mistaken, Beastie's speculation still fits the bill. Under her hypothesis, Utah men are jealous of the power which Utah women weild. Those men feel that men should have all the power just as they have been taught that preisthood leadership is necessary (or something like that--don't ask me exactly what critics think). Utah men may feel jealous that women have the right to say no to them.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
(Of course, if the society is extremely repressive, women will allow men to have sexual access without protesting, becaues protesting doesn't do any good anyway.) So in extremely patriarchal societies, there is very little forcible rape.
So if a woman doesn't protest because it doesn't do any good, it doesn't count as forcible rape?
Why do "extremely patriarchal" societies end up with this result? Would "less extremely patriarchal" societies have negative effects on a lesser scale?
An "extremely patriarchal" society would have rape statistics more near zero than the national/world average. Of course it would be highly underreported. Still, if Utah were extremely patriarchal, I would expect it to be well below the national average as far as reported cases goes.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
If I'm not mistaken, Beastie's speculation still fits the bill. Under her hypothesis, Utah men are jealous of the power which Utah women weild. Those men feel that men should have all the power just as they have been taught that preisthood leadership is necessary (or something like that--don't ask me exactly what critics think). Utah men may feel jealous that women have the right to say no to them.
This could be, but other scenarios also work.
In Mormonism, sexual release can only occur within marriage, and even the impulse to masturbate is something to be ashamed of. If a man inclined towards personality problems struggles continually with this guilt, he may begin to be angry and resentful towards the women who have provoked this problem - maybe by dressing provocatively. Maybe they need to be punished.
Or it could simply be a matter of feeling entitled to female services, whether or not the female desires them.
Even Charity recognizes that extreme patriarchal societies have this effect, so she recognizes the possible causality. She's just unwilling to consider that it may be a factor in LDS patriarchy as well.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
beastie wrote:She's just unwilling to consider that it may be a factor in LDS patriarchy as well.
for what it's worth, I don't believe the church is particularly patriarchal. Maybe it's just how my parents raised me. You see, in my home you could complain to dad and argue with him, but once mom spoke, the thinking had been done.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
for what it's worth, I don't believe the church is particularly patriarchal. Maybe it's just how my parents raised me. You see, in my home you could complain to dad and argue with him, but once mom spoke, the thinking had been done.
Of course the home environment can offset the church, but there's no denying the church is a patriarchal institution.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
(Of course, if the society is extremely repressive, women will allow men to have sexual access without protesting, becaues protesting doesn't do any good anyway.) So in extremely patriarchal societies, there is very little forcible rape.
So if a woman doesn't protest because it doesn't do any good, it doesn't count as forcible rape?
No, it isn't forcible rape unless threat of violence or violence is used.
beastie wrote:Why do "extremely patriarchal" societies end up with this result? Would "less extremely patriarchal" societies have negative effects on a lesser scale?
You didn't read what I wrote. Let me state it another way: Forcible rape is highest in the women's lib type of society.
charity wrote:Most rape is not about sex. So repressed sexuality doesn't even get into the picture. Rape is about power. Men in societies where they have the power don't generally rape. Most fordible rapists have sexual realtionships with wives or girl friends.
Actually, you're right, I've heard this. Wow, charity actually made a good point! Could this be the start of something?
hehe
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
charity wrote:You didn't read what I wrote. Let me state it another way: Forcible rape is highest in the women's lib type of society.
Charity is probably right here. Rape has increased as women have grown in power. While this doesn't neccessarily mean there's a connection I think there is.
There's no easy solution to that one though. I don't suspect anyone wants to go back to Victorian gender roles.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Forcible rape, as defined in the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Assaults or attempts to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included; however, statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are excluded.
Forcible rape is predicated upon forcing her against her will, not upon threats of violence although that is also included. The term also included would not be used if the entire definition were based upon the threat of violence, as you claim.
But aside from your misuse of the term, let's just call it 'rape' instead of 'forcible rape'. By your own words, in extreme patriarchal societies, force isn't even necessary because the woman knows it's no use. Why is this?
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Rape is about power, male power over women's bodies, both individually and collectively. It is not some expression of disgruntlement over "women's lib." Of course, I'm looking at things historically and politically...
The definition of rape which is currently used in western legal systems is a recent invention and one that is the result of women's organized activism around the issue. For example, the idea that a husband could rape "his" wife has only become intelligible recently: the concept didn't even exist until the idea that women are not entirely the legal and moral possession of their "owners" gained currency. How recent? In the U.S., not until 1978 when New York became the first state to outlaw rape in marriage. In 1990, only a total of ten states outlawed rape in marriage. I'm not sure what the current state-by-state laws are, its been a while since I've taught a Detective Fiction course, a course I teach as an investigation into the historical variability of notions of crime and the relation between crime and gender (something intrinsic to the detective narrative).
Last edited by Anonymous on Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."